FLSteve11

Even with the tunnel, the Port of Miami is not what most cruisers are accustomed too. Just different for many reasons. I was born in Miami and grew up for a bit in Coral Gables.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

I actually find that horrible basically 1-lane road ending at a street light going into the Port of Canaveral worse now. Last time I used that (in March, on the NCL Epic) it was a 30 minute bumper-to-bumper slog to get in the port. With the tunnel you get put right into the port, drop your bags and go park in the garage. It's just a busier port, and you have to deal with local crazy drivers :)

I don't sail out of PC that often (living in South Florida, I have the 2 big ports to sail out of already), so only go through there every couple of years. I assume it's not generally that bad, and seemed easier if going to the far end of the road rather then turning into the light at the first set of piers (maybe RCL docks there).

Dropped Laura off for Navigator using the tunnel. Easy peasy. Decided to be adventurous and use bridge going home. Huuuge mistake. [emoji33]

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Forums mobile app

It really is a lot easier with the tunnel. I have enough memories of driving over that bridge to/from Miami streets (or should they be called nightmares :) )

It's only been one year of an increase. The inflection point was about five years ago. There were measurable decreases in the rate of decrease.

Well, it almost has to level off, as it's not going to go down to zero. That's why I said it had to stagnate at some point. That doesn't mean it's going to go up. There's only so much they can stop crime. Might it go up, sure. More likely this is the more normal, unless there is a softening on crime control. I don't see that happening so far. We're still "Tough on crime", and the prison sentences are getting longer and longer (outside of a few high profile exceptions) The only spot I see it softening is in marijuana usage, which doesn't fall under violent crime.

And we are just the opposite. We would rather drive the extra hour to Ft Lauderdale (not Miami and only if we have to ) than take the shorter drive to Tampa and have to go on I-4. I'll take I 95 over I 4 anytime

Miami is a LOT better since they built the tunnel like 2 years ago, and can now stay on the highway all the way into the port itself. It was pretty awful when you had to get off and drive through the crazy Miami streets (and I lived there for 4 years, grew up in NYC, and still think Miami city driving is the worst).

If a persons card opens the door then its fine. What does age have to do with who is allowed to be in d lounge? Have seen concierges ask to see card when they have thought there were persons not entitled to the lounge. Don't know why some passengers think they are the police. Just enjoy your cruise.

 

On an explorer cruise last month the concierge went up to some passengers to see their seapass card. Told them that it was a lounge for d members and asked them to leave. The group entered up the outside stairs from the deck below as the gate was open. I don't think they were crashing but just curious as to where these stairs went. Now on this cruise there were no pinnacle members and just a little over 100 d and d+ cruisers.

 

Sent from my SM-T217S using Tapatalk

I agree, especially considering there are quite a few kids who cruise regularly. Maybe they don't like how kids inherit their parents status and keep it when they turn 18, and figured they got it that way. Our DD has been on about 14-15 RCCL cruises (at 13yo), and would be Diamond on her own right already (she's D+ through us). I suspect people will think that's her case when she goes in there for a snack, or down the road when she's 21.

But seemingly turning a corner and heading back to higher rates.

Maybe, but one year doesn't mean anything. In 1998 and 2004 the rates went up for a year or two, then continued going down as it had been for many years. It's possible it's turned a corner, or stagnated, or will just continue to go down. We don't know yet. It's just as likely it's a statistical blip. At some point it will level off, but even if it's goes up, it's still well below what it has been, and will be for a long time.

The point of my comment is that crime does happen on ships as well. If you clicked on the link I supplied it shows just this year from January to March 27 crimes reported most sexual assault. In a 3 month period. I realize today people don't want to parent their kids but at least keep yourself aware of dangers that can occur. A cruise ship is not a floating babysitter for unattended children.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Yes, crime can happen. The odds of crime happening is still very small, including (and maybe even more so) then cruise ships. I read the link to the article, according to it there were 62 sexual assaults out of 24,000,000 passengers. A rate of .0003% according to that article (is there more unreported, I'm certainly sure there are quite a lot more, but still very low). There is a difference between those people that don't want to parent their kids (there certainly are some, who use vacation as a chance to let their kids do anything with no guidance), and those that teach their children how to handle themselves.

Almost every parent today was given more freedom to do things on their own when they were children. So would you say that of your parents then, that they didn't want parent their kids?

There was a woman murdered on a princess cruise by her spouse in front of her 3 kids this week on the emerald princess. Stuff does happen

https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/mission/safety/278981/cruise-line-incident-report-1-jan-31-mar-2017.pdf

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Because that definitely wouldn't have happened at home. Of course some stuff happens. It just does not happen very often, and less often then it did in the past 50+ years. Nothing is completely safe, even locking yourself in your house forever by yourself.

While I think a child's behavior can be an indication of the parenting, I agree with the post above that the parent's reaction to their child's misbehavior is a more accurate representation.

 

I know my two children come from the same genetics, environment, parenting, expectations, and discipline and are very different. My son would do things my daughter never would. It boils down to personality. I believe they have much of that predetermined from a young age (of course environment can change that). A strong willed child will question you more. Will definitely push the limits more. You add in more adventurous with that and you can have some situations that the child knows you will not approve of and still does. Sometimes we determine an action is worth the consequences. The same could be said of myself and my brother. We were very different kids. If you were to rate my parents based on me you would likely said they did a good job when we were younger kids. On some days with my brother being the only comparison maybe not as much. :)

 

I think the best parenting advice I read said you have to parent with relationship, not just power. Some day the parent will not be bigger, stronger, and will not be able to completely force every move the kid makes. If you don't have relationship where the child respects you and values your opinion you likely won't get a child that does everything you taught regardless of what you require when you have the power to enforce it easily. For me my son by the time he was a preteen was taller and stronger. You have to have the relationship before that hits.

Definitely agree. You need that relationship to parent well, particularly as they get older. If you don't lay some kind of foundation when they're younger on what is appropriate and not, you'll have a lot more trouble trying to get that later on in life. My daughter is the stubborn type, but not an envelope pusher. She'll dig her heels and complain and complain, but when the final word comes she'll accept it. She's not the risk taker type in general. For us, I learned the best thing to do is give her a chance to come up with a valid reason if she wants to do something I might not agree with initially in many cases (some things are just "NO" of course, and sometimes there just is no time or place to do so). I in turn try to explain why I won't let her. This gives her a chance to at least feel like she has been given a chance. And sometimes she does come up with very good reasons and I'll change my mind (depending what it is of course). Of course, being married to a lawyer, I'm used to this *grin* In the end though, I get the final word and decision. It's a relationship, but it's still not a Democracy.

Steve,

 

I have to disagree because kids at 16 likely may need to drive. For example, my eldest was very involved in High School. Many clubs and extra curricular activities. She at 16 had 7 am dance practice and cheer practice after school daily. There wasn't a cab service or school bus to get her to these places and her father and I were working 45 mins away. My son choose to get a job after school to save for enhancements to his car. Again he needed a way to get there after school before we were home. So he needed to drive.

 

Let me make sure I'm following you: Driving is dangerous and not necessary, but they can easily learn this skill quickly right before it is needed. Yet a 13 year old must learn to do be alone and function on vacation amongst adults and adult situations likely many years before that will be an actuality if ever? You lost me on that.

 

I doubt I'll ever understand the concept of my child wants to do their own thing on a cruise as a preteen, and younger for certain, and I think I should allow that on a family vacation. I guess our idea of family vacation is different. My family knows it is time to be together and have a hopefully nice, relaxing time. We all do things we might not choose first so everyone can enjoy some things they want to do. If I wanted a romantic vacation or a partying one I would go with my spouse or other adults and leave my kids at home with family.

 

I don't trust the many adult situations on board and many intoxicated adults are something my young child needs to encounter without supervision and protection. You feel different and that is okay. Again it is your child, your call.

No child NEEDS to drive. You determined the risk of them driving on their own and felt that it was worth it, rather then not working and driving them around yourself. I happen to agree with you on that. While driving (or riding in) a car is much more dangerous for a minor (teen/tween whatever) then walking around on your own. It's still a generally risk free item. Like I said, it's balancing the risk, and the likelihood something is going to happen versus letting them get to do things.

I do think driving is a good skill, and should be learned. My daughter certainly will when she's old enough for it. (In age and maturity, though I'm not really worried about that). Just like being independent and getting to do things on their own around a neighborhood or ship. Both have a level of risk. The risk is higher in driving, but the reward is better, so you do it. I don't think one is right or wrong, we just have different ideas of what the risk (or reward) is.

We cruise a lot. We do excursions together, we do dinners together, we mostly see shows together and do a lot of activities together. The majority of the time we spend together. That doesn't mean my daughter wants to spend every second with us, doing the same things we want to do. From my side, I can't understand the concept that a 13yo wants to do the same thing a parent wants to do ALL the time. While we do a lot together, we don't see why I would need to be dragged to every children oriented activity or scrapbooking class, while then taking the child to an adult oriented show or activity. I certainly don't hang out with a bunch of 13yo girls when she's with her friends, and she would be hate to hang out with a bunch of adult guys. Why would it be different on a cruise? We have different interests, and each get to enjoy them. That's just how we do it.

Like you said, we just do things differently. Nothing outright wrong with either of them, since we come from different circumstances and places we'll see some things differently.

The fact that people actually believe the world is safer today is kind of scary to me. We have news reports of disappearing kids and bodies being found daily. The thought people live with rose tinted glasses and think it's perfectly find for minors to be left unattended to their own devices on a cruise just astonishes me

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Because it IS. The only difference is now they plaster the news over the internet so you know about anything going on in the country. Fear sells, tap into a persons fear and you'll get them to spend money to cover it (hopefully, to them, by buying their news coverage or those of their advertisers). Every statistic shows the US (not saying anything about other countries) is twice as safe as it used to be during it's high point, which was about 25 years ago. When many of us were kids and thought nothing of going out. Why? Because we had maybe 10 television channels and no internet, so we knew nothing of what was going on. That and the dozens of serialized television shows dramatizing works of fiction over hundreds of cable channels (because, fears sells and you'll watch it). Is it perfectly, zero proof safe? No, but it's definitely safer then it used to be. The vast majority of disappearing kids are runaways, followed by custody disputes. Yet we fixate on every story as the boogeyman has come to get them.

Jacka*s ran for all of three years and ended in 2002. Their most recent film came out over six years ago. I think there is a tendency of older people especially to blame the media for what they perceive to be negative behaviors in their kids, but numerous studies have shown that consumption of violent books, movies, video games, and tv don't actually lead to increased violent behavior. Before the Jacka*s boys were even born, kids were jumping off their garage roofs trying to fly or having fireworks explode in their hands. Extreme sports have existed long before there was a YouTube around to post your sick flips on. Humans naturally seek an adrenaline rush, and no amount of hand-wringing over TV shows is going to change that.

I think extreme sports back when we were young were a bike, a mound of dirt and a wooden plank. And no helmets or anything like that. I think it does depend on the kids though. Some kids are the type to push the envelope and always be trying to break (or at least push) the rules or do outrageous things. While other kids are happier being conservative and just enjoying where they are and what they're doing. It's the first ones who end up on the videos. Those are the same ones who would do it, whether it's today or 30 or 60 years ago.

As I said before I agree it's a smaller risk but any risk that I can easily avoid by just having my young child with me as I feel they should be anyway in a situation like a cruise ship is too much of a risk for my child.

 

I let my child drive when it was legally designated age to do so. At 16 it makes total sense to learn how to drive as in a couple short years that will more than likely be a necessity in life. I don't see that it's a necessity in life in a couple years for a 13 year old to be able to go to a highly populated place and be able to function on their own. I'm sure we can agree there's a huge difference in maturity and many other things between 13 and 16. I doubt you let your 13 year old go on dates or drive a car or at least I hope not.

Well we look at risk differently then, or at least we look at the likelihood of an event happening verses what else happens with it differently. I feel my child is fine going around a cruise ship on her own to some events (not wandering aimlessly in the middle of the night) as such a miniscule risk that the benefit of her enjoying herself and getting to do things on her own like she does normally at home is worth it.

Saying it's legally designated age doesn't mean much, as legally any child can walk around a cruise ship. There's no reason that a 16yo needs to drive, and can quickly learn that skill in a very short time before they become an adult and need to (there are adults who can't drive, and you could drive her until she's 17 and say 9 months). Yet driving is by far a riskier thing for a teenager to do then an early teen/late tween in a decent neighborhood or on a cruise ship. There are many more deaths and injuries. The difference is we perceive it in a different way, and don't feel it's more dangerous. Of course I wouldn't let my 13yo drive, she's not ready yet to do that. I'm sure she will be when she's 16 and taken appropriate classes and learned. She is ready to walk around on her own though, order some drinks, do activities she enjoys doing. She's learned how to do that and is comfortable with it. We just see it differently in when they're ready for it, that's all.

You can't stop kids from doing stupid stuff. We don't know all the facts in this case. It appears the parents had a curfew and the kids knowingly snuck out and broke the rules. The kids followed up this stupidity by posting it on-line. IMHO how the parents handle the discipline of these kids now that they have been caught would shed light on whether they are good parents or not. If they excused the behavior as kids being kids and didn't punish them in some way then I would say that is bad parenting. If they held the kids accountable for their actions by giving them some sort of punishment and accepted any penalty from the cruise line to show that they (as the responsible adults) are taking responsibility for the actions of their kids, then I would say that is good parenting.

 

You can bring you kids up right (even helicopter them if you are so inclined) and still have them pull a stupid stunt on you....it is how you react to their stupid stunts that determines parenting skills. Using their stupid stunt to show them how and why they wrong and enforcing consequences and even laying on the guilt trip (showing them respect for rules) is much more effective than blowing it off as kids being kids and letting them go with no discipline (showing them that it is ok to disrespect the rules).

 

I don't believe in helicoptering kids. I believe in increasing their responsibility/freedom based on their maturity along with giving them the tools they need to be independent (ie cell phones, self-defense, rules of being cautious, setting meeting times and rules on knowing where each other are). You start them slowly and build them up as they build confidence in themselves and you build confidence in them.

 

Having said that I don't think a layered curfew for kids unsupervised (either without a parent/guardian with them or not in the kids club) is inappropriate in a cruise setting. My suggestion would be under 10 should always have a parent/guardian around or be in the kids club, 11-15 have an unsupervised curfew of 11 pm, 16-17 an unsupervised curfew of 1 am. Any thing less than that should be set by the parent, not the cruise line, based on the kids maturity and the level of trust between the parent and child.

I agree with pretty much everything in here. I like the 1am curfew on RCCL for all minors who are unsupervised. Minors can be out after that, but must be with a parent/guardian. For us, once it gets into the evening, our daughter can now go do things, but we want to know where she'll be if not in the kids club or heading back to the cabin. We all have dinner together, so she'll give us a rundown on what she wants to do. Most of the times it will be for things like movies under the stars, or going to get some pizza, or one of the evening parties on deck or in an atrium (depending on the ship/line). I'm usually the one who likes to go out and do different things in the evening (see a show, comedian, casino, live bands, etc), my wife is more the type to do dinner, the show and go back and read. It does depend on the kid a lot. Some are quite capable of handling themselves at a younger age, while others are in college and still cannot manage themselves maturely. They just can't make that the requirement as parents will just say "my kid is..."

Strophic: Not many (even here) will argue that "kids have always been doing dumb things", but I'll disagree that it isn't getting worse. I'll even call it "immorality creep" -- but using the construct of "morality" very loosely, i.e., don't anybody go all literal on me. Not trying to be sanctimonious -- I raised two kids, both of whom developed their own highly personalized self-discipline problems, and I was once a kid myself, and I grew up with brothers, a couple dozen close cousins and hundreds of class/church/funmates. There wasn't a perfect kid in the whole bunch. I'm just saying, nobody can convince me that the problem of self-discipline (and dirth of good sense) isn't growing at least a little more widespread and more extreme than it used to be. And I won't draw any line at the year 2000, because I know a heckuva lot of very sensible and responsible millennials (etc), people I'm proud to call friends (and relatives). I'll just refer back to the "creep" on which I opined up front. And I might also opine that the "creep" is accelerating. (Stressing "opinion", just my two cents.)

I don't know, since we don't have anywhere near as much documented cases (ie social media) from when we were young, but it's probably worse now. I will say the extreme end is probably worse on some people. I would say social media, and the desire to post greater and greater outrageous acts is probably the biggest culprit of it (as someone else mentioned, those raised watching shows like "*******", or trying to ring up "likes" on videos). In a case like this, it's a totally dumb act, and the kid should be punished (by parents if not cruise line), but goes along with the stories of people jumping of balconies into hotel pools as well (which has happened forever, and still wrong), or off bridges into rivers and lakes. Now they do it mainly to get their videos posted and wrack up more likes and viewers, rather then just impress their friends at the time on how daring they are.

What I can agree with you on is majority of crimes like murder and sexual abuse are done by family, friends, aka people u know. I doubt bc someone lives or frequents good areas that means they have almost no risk. Surely you know some of the infamous serial killers/rapists evaded by being well spoken and dressed. It's wrong to give false security that if u stay out of bad neighborhoods nothing bad will likely happen to u.

 

I don't know your daughter's age, but based on the bicycle example I'm betting young enough there is no way I'll let mine wander a cruise ship or even my "good" neighborhood and town with low crime rate. Beauty is it is your child so u decide what's best for her. I sincerely hope she is never subject to any horific event where you are like the mom in that article or likely every parent in a similar situation regretting they weren't more cautious.

It's fine, we just think differently on it. I know statistically it is very safe to be out for a child for major crimes. Much more so then when we were kids. The safest in most people's lifetimes. I do know about serial killers, I also know that those people were also a very rare event (not that many big serial killers in history, which is why they're famous). It's a perceptual thing. For example, did you let your child drive before they were 18, or ride in the car with an under 18 driver. If so, they were in far more danger doing that then walking around on their own. Yet people generally have no problem getting their child their license at 16 and letting them drive where they wan to be, even if it's one of the riskiest things they're doing. Yet we don't think ourselves bad parents or selfish for letting them do so (instead of driving them around to everything at that point). I'm not saying you jump in the car with a stranger or walk around at 3am, but going around the neighborhood, or ship, in normal hours is safe from major crimes.

She's 13, and basically we've been letting her do it for about a year now (on her own in the ship), more then that with riding her bike to school or her friends house (less then a mile for either) in an above average neighborhood. She's also a seasoned cruiser so we've let her do more as time goes on. By the way, speaking of the article, 62 sex assault cases (of all people, not just minors) in the entire cruising world, out of 24 million passengers, or .0003% I would put that at rather safe (even if we significantly increase it for unreported cases) and puts the odds at about half of being killed by a lightning strike at any point in your life. Is it zero, no, but pretty darned low. That doesn't mean I warrant a minor wandering around at 2am on the ship either.

I have been on cruises and have seen 10 year olds with loaded money on sale and sign accounts left to spend it at will. I saw one when the kiosk was down kicking it. When he couldn't see what he had left in his account he went up to purchase some cookies & something to drink the attendant advised him he did not have enough left on his account and he kicked the counter and ran off. The attendant told him he has purchased slot of cookies today and he got offended and sulked off after kicking the counter. Not a parent around monitoring where he was!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Which is clearly inappropriate behavior. There are certainly some kids who don't behave on cruises (well, there are some adults too). You wish their parents would do a better job of teaching their kids manners, but sadly those kids parents are usually the ones drunk in the casino (apple usually doesn't fall too far), and never did.

Well some do. I think there can be a difference. Either way I don't care what anyone wants to label it. In my book it is common sense and good parenting to watch your children on a cruise. I don't know one valid reason not to. A cruise isn't the only opportunity to teach children independence or responsibility. It can be done in endless more controlled, safer environments. Sounds like an excuse by some to not be bothered with their children on family vacation.

I definitely agree with you there. It is not the place to teach it initially. That should be done at home before you get on the cruise. If you're teaching your child independence all along, then being on a cruise should just be an extension of that. It's not the time to let your kids off on their own for the first time (no vacation should be), when they may be overwhelmed with everything going on. Sadly there ARE parents who just want to "dump their kids" and do things on their own. That's different then what I mean when I say kids should be getting to be independent (if they've already shown they can be at home and their neighborhood).

FL Steve ...so u are suggesting that kids are relatively safe on land from sexual assault, kidnapping, or murder as long as not in bad neighborhoods? If u want to teach your child responsibility and safety you don't need to do that by turning them loose in small area of thousands of people, to which many are intoxicated.

You didn't ask, but I'm 40. I don't buy my kids are safer now. I grew up Kc and felt safer there in 80s verses now in significantly smaller, more rural area. I would have to see many legitimate stats before I would even entertain that thoery.

I'll say it again, no problem taking the overprotective label and will wear it proudly.

Actually, yes, they are. If you stay out of the bad neighborhoods then a child is more then relatively safe from rape, murder, sexual assault. Certainly from a stranger. (We had a person down the block arrested for it, after that I got interested in learning about it so looked it all up). The vast majority of cases of all of those occur by a member of the family or close family friend. My daughter rides her bike to school and library or around the neighborhood if she wants, or walks to her friends house. She has to let me know when she goes (and text me when she gets there), but it's not an issue and many of the kids in the neighborhood do.

That's what happens. You feel it's worse now, but we didn't have the internet to blast every incident that happens anywhere in the country or world. Back then there was the local news and paper, and if it didn't happen in your neighborhood, well it didn't happen. Now you know if a kid 1000 miles away goes missing (and usually turns to be a runaway or custody dispute, but that followup isn't good news so gets left out). Look up crime statistics for the last couple years, and compare them to 25-30 years ago (when crime was probably at it's worse, I believe I remember 1992 is the peak year for worst violent crime in the US), they're down a good 50% from back then. I grew up in NYC in the late 70s-80s, and I hear more about crime cases now in a generally safe Florida neighborhood (almost all not happening here) then I ever did back then.

Now, I'm not saying anyone should just let their kid run off with no guidance. The ones who get into problems are the ones where parents don't set rules (or don't care). We follow some simple (but we're strict on it guidelines) like no going in anyone else's cabin, no letting anyone else in ours while we're not there, no taking a drink from anyone (we give her charging priviledges so she can buy her own virgin drinks or soda). Leave us a note or text us if you're going somewhere for a significant amount of time. Letting your child do things on their own doesn't mean just letting them run wild.

I don't want to shock you, but my daughter had been able to go to College and was always responsible and mature for age. Even with my over protective hovering. :)

That's good for you, and definitely for her. It's great to see with kids no matter who they are. I know plenty of college kids and graduates of parents who were helicopter parents. Some of them transferred to a college closer to home, or moved back home after college. Some of it because their life skills were lacking. Is it most, no of course not. Plenty do just fine on their own. Are there a couple who had parents who let them be independent, sure. But I definitely see a higher percentage from those who rarely got to do things on their own growing up.

You don't know the likelihood of abuse or some other incident is. Even if you did and even if it was a very, very small risk as you stated any risks that I could have easily avoided by not being selfish and incompetent is too much for my children. I've taken my children on plenty of vacations and I didn't let them wander around unattended. Now did my parents watch me every second no, but it also was a very different world when I was a child versus now. How about instead of saying the middle schoolers should be able to do that why not explain why you think as middle schoolers should be able to do that. I don't have any valid reason coming to mind.

I do know based on statistics that the risk of something happening to a child on a ship is remarkably minimal (as it is in most places in the country outside of "bad neighborhoods"). I don't call it selfish and incompetent. I call it guiding my child in what to do and giving her some responsibilities in doing so. And yes, it IS a different world. It's MUCH safer now than it was in the past. Granted, I don't know your age (and not going to ask :) But unless you were a child in the 50s, then they're safer today then you were. If you were a child in the late 70s-early 90s then you're twice as safe now then you were then. The only reason people think otherwise is the news, and internet, publicize every little thing that happens. Fear sells, and we buy into it.

I think middle schoolers should be able to do that because most of them, certainly the older ones (let's say 12+) should be capable of being able to handle themselves in a public situation (provided their parents were being appropriate in giving them guidance and instructions in what to do, or not to do). There should be no issues if they are properly behaved in going around the ship to different activities, going to get a bite to eat, going to see a movie or show going on. (No, they should not be jumping off ledges into pools, hitting buttons on elevators, etc. That's misbehaving, not proper behavior). They should also do it so they can actually learn to function and make independent decisions in society. Just look at many of the current college students and recent graduates, and how many issues they have in dealing with the world, getting jobs, takin care of themselves, etc. They were never shown, partly by having the opportunity, to actually be independent and learn how to handle themselves without mom and dad being ever present and likely handling it for them.

There was another one that they added later on a lower floor, still marked as DL and showed up on the deck plan...but not used (looked like storage equipment in there). I know cocktails were not offered in the original DL (but I liked the coffee station in there). Nightly cocktails for DL was in Blaze night club during happy hour. That balcony was also a nice place to people and parade watch, if you could

find room at the railing that is.

I think that depends on how many D and up were on the ship. With a child, we sailed during spring break and there were not many of them. So the DL was used for regular cocktail hour then. I'm sure if there were significantly more they would use Blaze instead as it's larger.

If that is accurate that is good to know. Either way risk is still there. All offenders didn't have a record at some point. Many ppl don't report sexual abuse as well. Point is ppl need to be responsible parents and protect their children. Allowing them to wander a ship is not safe or good parenting. Still bet there are quite a few sickos on board.

I'm sorry, that's just overhyped paranoia. The risk of a stranger abusing a child on a cruise ship is very, very small. Is it zero, of course not. There is no such thing as zero risk. But to say your middle school child cannot spend time on a ship by themselves at any point is just another point of people saying kids don't know how to act responsibly on their own. Of course they don't, if mommy and daddy are holding their hands until they go to college. I'm not saying a middle schooler should be out wandering around at 3am for no reason, no one really should be. An appropriate time should be about when kids clubs end (let's say midnight-1am, which is when RCL has their curfer). There are not roving bands of sickos on cruise ships, outside of maybe on television series. I'm sure you didn't spend every second at your parents side until you turned 18 while you were growing up. Same thing here.

I just used 50k of my points for a 4-night cruise on Indy leaving on Thanksgiving, which worked out rather well (as it's up to $1000 for that, or 2%). In speaking with the person, they mentioned they are adding the Oasis class back to the ships you can do the 7-night Caribbean cruises on for 125k points. I never use mine for OBC, doesn't seem worth it for those. I'll likely use my next one for a Harmony sailing once we can swing the vacation time beyond what we already have down for. :)

Nice review going, we're doing a short cruise on Indy at Thanksgiving, so nice to read the items on it. We've sailed RCL a number of times, and been on one of the sister ships (Liberty) twice. We've sailed 3 times on DCL ourselves as well Don't be afraid of the larger ships, much like with Indy, you don't feel too crowded. Plus, the AquaDuck water ride is a lot of fun! :)

The no snacks by the pool is a regular thing people notice when sailing on RCL the first time. Most people just run into the Windjammer buffet to get snacks (when it's open at least). A lot of the ships are getting a Park Café, usually in the solarium, but suspect Indy isn't getting that until next year.

Looking forward to the rest of the review. I pretty much agree with your experiences comparing the two lines. Though DCL has a better buffet to me. (Presuming they're still doing the crab legs and shrimp *grin*) And we also like the split bathrooms.